HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

reducesuffering

4,589 karma · joined October 27, 2016

eshkidd@gmail.com
submissionscomments
reducesuffering··on Livenerf: Has Opus 5.5 been nerfed yet?
You're literally doing what GP is describing. We have objective data on running shoes on: https://runrepeat.com/

The foams are getting better, the shoes lighter, they are more cushioned and more responsive in general. Especially the ASICS.

reducesuffering··on DraftKings Is Using AI to Behaviorally Target Chronic Gamblers
Imagine having a "stop gambling assistance" section of your fking AD to promote gambling to people
reducesuffering··on DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers
"we regulate the passive exploitation of people to supplement taxes in a regressive manner."

I was convinced by this for a full 30 seconds before I realized there are millions of advertisements for the state lotteries. They aren't just regulating a market that will exist with or without the state, they are actively promoting and encouraging it

reducesuffering··on Which Diet Is Best to Lower Liver Fat and Improve Insulin Sensitivity?
Astonishingly simplified. There is far more evidence for the health improvements from ample amount of strength training and aerobic cardio exercise. Good luck lifting 3x and running 3x a week on "low carb".

Amongst acquaintances I see low carb adherents. I wonder why they are always the ones woefully less fit than the serious athlete acquaintances. Amongst serious athletes there is no low carb proselytizing lol.

For sure it can help people who don't exercise and thus don't use much carbs in the first place. But that is far from ideal health, and thus the ideal diet.

reducesuffering··on Goodbye Google
Bold to claim "anti-intellectualism" when the existential risk arguments are abundant all over the internet and from AGI researchers everywhere for you to fix your misunderstanding. Intellectual capability is orthogonal to the entity's goals. If the extreme intelligence does not have the same goals, it will easily be able to pursue things that don't have our best interests in mind.

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/orthogonality-thesis

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/instrumental-convergence

reducesuffering··on Goodbye Google
Exactly. HN has had an utterly terrible prediction record for AI. So many dismissals of capabilities and existential risk, even this year, that get proven wrong within a month.
reducesuffering··on Goodbye Google
You're probably not aware that all of the "science fiction" about AI from LessWrong written 5-20 years ago has come true and our present AI environment reflects that. It wasn't science fiction, it was prescient.
reducesuffering··on Goodbye Google
While unfortunate, these are not personal issues. By promoting AGI capability progress, you risk the lives of billions of all of us.
reducesuffering··on Our framework for reporting model misalignment
Yes, but clearly that's not what Zitron was implying. The rest of his thread's commentary makes that clearer. He's saying:

OpenAI is going to implode soon. They would have to raise an unfathomable amount of money, it's literally never been done and is so much it won't happen. That's why they're going to collapse.

He could have predicted that OpenAI would raise an unprecedented amount of money and are not going to collapse. He clearly believed differently.

reducesuffering··on Our framework for reporting model misalignment
"Based on estimates of their burn rate and historic analyses, I hypothesize that OpenAI will collapse in the next 12-24 months unless it raises more funding than in the history of the valley and creates an entirely new form of AI." - Ed Zitron (Jul 29, 2024)
reducesuffering··on For AI leaders Doom is a form of hype
Yep, anyone who thinks these leaders are only saying this now for marketing purposes hasn't even done a cursory 15 minute investigation into whether their beliefs are verifiably false.
reducesuffering··on For AI leaders Doom is a form of hype
Because they can't. If they actually engaged with it, they would realize how shallow the "doomer" / existential risk dismissals are. Meanwhile there are ample essays and arguments about the existential issues from Turing award winners, frontier lab CEO's, and many more. There's also https://ai-2040.com/ , you will never see the equivalent on the other side of the debate because it won't hold under any scrutiny.
reducesuffering··on David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
As you should. Sacks takes the contrarian moronic take on everything, and the people that are correct and prescient (idk maybe all of the people who ended up as CEO's of frontier labs and Turing award winners in AI?) are saying that AGI is a very real risk of humanity's extinction.
reducesuffering··on Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
Already determined, but yes frontier models will eventually identify them confidently
reducesuffering··on We must pace the frontier
This thread is a testament to the travesty of how bad HN discourse has gotten. It's become an echo chamber of knee-jerk cynical sneering. All the heads of the labs (Sama, Dario, Demis Hassabis, Ilya, Musk) agree with the risks to humanity's existence. Most of the core employees agree. Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Bernie Sanders agree. These issues have been discussed in more intelligent channels for a decade now, and still after all the incredible mathematics and coding progress that is improving incredibly fast every 6 months, this forum is fundamentally unserious. You will not find prescient views in the HN majority anymore, for many years now. The people intelligent, prescient, and forward thinking enough, skating to where the puck was going, to be involved in shaping the future of AGI are elsewhere and barely involved in this place from how badly it's gotten. The inventor of RLHF [0], and newest board member of OpenAI, wasn't on HN, they were on LessWrong.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741

reducesuffering··on We must pace the frontier
It's worrying because they all agree, along with Turing Award winners like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, that this is indeed an existential risk to humanity.
reducesuffering··on OpenAI considers slowing advanced AI development, Sam Altman tells employees
Yes, that's the point. It does no good for the US to stop if China doesn't. It does no good for the US to go full speed ahead to beat China, it still leads to a high probability of extinction. That would be like saying "I can't let China blow me up, I'll blow myself up first." Well, if you're unsure if China will blow you up, at least don't do it to yourself.
reducesuffering··on OpenAI considers slowing advanced AI development, Sam Altman tells employees
https://www.thecompendium.ai/ai-catastrophe

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...

A book if you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_...

reducesuffering··on OpenAI considers slowing advanced AI development, Sam Altman tells employees
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear. No other human activity poses this level of danger." - https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476196791709843#m

"Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could." - Sam Altman

"If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_...

reducesuffering··on Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026
This forum is fundamentally unserious and complete kneejerk cynicism these days. At one point it was prescient. Now these types of things were discussed years ago in other channels and when we reach a point where finally everyone comes around to the right conclusion based on tangible evidence in the news, a majority of people here go "huh i guess so"
reducesuffering··on AI 2027 (2025)
GCP reported its first quarterly operating profit in Q1 2023, roughly 15 years after Google began offering cloud computing.

Frontier labs are also reinvesting their tens of billions of revenue back into infra scaleout, sounds like Amazon.

If 2 of 3 were like this, and Azure numbers were never split out, want to take a guess what the economics of the third was like too?

reducesuffering··on AI 2027 (2025)
This is exactly how Cloud Computing looked in 2012-2018. Dumping huge $ into computing buildout that wasn't profitable yet. All those co's: Amazon, GCP, Azure paid off immensely and are ridiculously profitable.
reducesuffering··on I resigned from Anthropic today
GP defined reasonable people as not believing in existential risk from AGI. I think the leadership and alignment teams are way more informed and reasonable than some of the very poorly thought through takes like GP just making things up about the labs. There’s just no evidence of it whereas lab leadership are operating under a mostly informed worldview.

Yes, I don’t think lab leadership are totally reasonable as they were concerned about the risks and yet lack of reason caused them to directly contribute to the problem we’re facing. They’re still not being reasonable when they throw their hands up at the arms race and hope the utopia come, when that’s not our trajectory at all and more lab employees are realizing it

reducesuffering··on I resigned from Anthropic today
Both companies have deluded themselves into thinking the arms race is going to happen anyway and they need to rush to it first, as if somehow that helps. They have publicly stated as such repeatedly. They think the ~10-50% chance of extinction sucks, but that it's going to happen anyway and they believe they can steer it towards something good the best and unlock all the potential positives like infinite life.
reducesuffering··on I resigned from Anthropic today
How is it not addressed? The company never contained only "reasonable people" that believe AGI is not an existential risk to humanity. At both inceptions were people who believed in AGI x-risk, even the founders. Only after time, did there become more "reasonable people" who were mercenaries and only believed it to be a typical tech job. Today, there are more "reasonable people" than ever there. They haven't been pushed out. We're just witnessing some prescient mercenaries smart enough to Eureka the grave implications of what is actually happening.
reducesuffering··on I resigned from Anthropic today
Before OpenAI was ever even founded, way before any regulatory capture plausible claims:

"Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could." -Sam Altman

Dario discussing AGI Existential Risk in 2014 before OpenAI and Anthropic: https://intelligence.org/2014/01/13/miri-strategy-conversati...

Both companies have deluded themselves into thinking the arms race is going to happen anyway and they need to rush to it first, as if somehow that helps.

reducesuffering··on I resigned from Anthropic today
> I can only assume the reasonable people at openai and anthropic were all pushed out long ago

Typical uninformed take on the side of "doomers are crazy".

Both CEO's of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, and many in their leadership, believe AGI has a very real probability of causing humanity's extinction. Both companies were founded upon this belief, it is at the core of the company. Only later were mercenaries hired chasing $1m compensation packages.

reducesuffering··on On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
More like latent societal anxiety, some chaos, and then instant grey goo.
reducesuffering··on On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
> extremely intelligent people make confident predictions about AI capabilities and progress, then be so completely wrong.

The ability for the human mind to rationalize conclusions to maintain denial in the face of a very scary future is immense. Genuinely grappling with the implication of where we're headed is usually very crushing. It's not easy to engage with the possibility, and very intelligent people will use those smarts to feel safe.

reducesuffering··on On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
Yes a couple of elite mathematicians working on the problem for a year, which AGI solved in a fraction of the time. What about everyone else 100IQ? What about as the models are even better 1 year from now, 2 years? The trajectory hasn't abated.
Page 1 of 34Next →